Honduras: What Should Our Response Be?

The more I read about what is happening in Honduras, the more I am convinced that it might be best that Obama use the generic, “the Honduran people will decide their future,” statement. 

Daniel Larison, who supported Obama’s reaction to the Iranian coup (completely illegal, by the way), now seems pleased to skewer Obama on his response to the Honduran coup.  Here is the key quote:

What is so impressive about the bungling here is that it contradicts every argument the administration has made in support of restraint and caution when it comes to the Iranian protests. Obama didn’t want to insert the U.S. into an Iranian dispute. Iranians, he said, would decide their own future. Hondurans apparently are not accorded the same respect. Their sovereignty isn’t quite as important. Obama withheld judgment about the legality of what had happened in Iran. In Honduras, he just knows that what the military did was illegal, despite far stronger evidence that it was legal and a result of the proper functioning of their constitutional system.

Larison’s claims regarding the legality of the coup (from the point of view that the other branches of government supported the actions of the military), seem to be strengthened by interim President Michelleti’s declaration that the only way ex-President Zelaya would be allowed to return is “at the head of a foreign army.”  If he didn’t have solid support from the Legislature, the Supreme Court and other government institutions, it is unlikely he could make such a claim.

The best way to see the events in Honduras, according to Larison, is as the system of checks and balances working even though the means to enforcement were somewhat illegal.  The contradictions is a bit tough but I certainly see his point.  As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Supreme Court all agree with the actions of the army (and claim to have authorized it – feel free to be skeptical, it is probably warranted).

This Honduran blogger, however, makes an interesting and important point:

I fear we have gone from bad to worse. At least Zelaya seemed to speak out for the poor. As one priest said this morning, despite all his errors and his vanity, Zelaya was the first major leader in many years to offer people a little bit of openness to the needs of the poor. The priest said he is not supporting the person Zelaya, but the cause of the poor. Micheletti is closely tied with the economic powers to be. An indication of his position is his support of privatization of water in his own district.

Also, Al Giordiano, a prominent blogger covering Honduras, is claiming that Michelleti and the Congress have suspended a number of Honduran rights.  Take his claims with a grain of salt as he is against Michelleti and for Zelaya.

A Coup For Democracy?

Mary Anastacia O’Grady at the WSJ is making that claim – and she is supported by many in the Honduran ex-pat community living in the U.S (as well as many Hondurans on the ground it seems).

I will say, as more information trickles out it seems that as far as coups go, the case of Honduras stands out as a particularly process-heavy exception.  The Supreme Court stated it authorized the military action against the President.  The Attorney General is saying that Zelaya knew he would be charged and agreed to leave the country. The Legislature already appointed a president pro-tempore, as outlined in the Constitution.  In his first statement to Honduras, the new President, Roberto Michelleti, declared that no one should refer to this as a coup, since it was in keeping with democracy that ex-President Zelaya was removed from office.  It is ironic that Zelaya’s own party in Congress is investigating whether he is mentally fit to hold office and voted to replace Zelaya with Michelleti.

Furthermore, the events leading up to the Presidents expulsion, if O’Grady is correct, make the case against Zelaya stronger.  He apparently:

1) disregarded the Constitutional requirement of Congressional approval by trying to hold a referendum;

2) disobeyed a Supreme Court order not to hold the referendum or the “unofficial” referendum;

3) stormed a military barracks with some of his supporters and stole the ballots (from Venezuela, no less) and handed them out.

Here is a great quote from the O’Grady article, referring to the fact that democracy can often be compromised from within:

Former Argentine Ambassador to the U.N. Emilio Cárdenas told me on Saturday that he was concerned that “the OAS under Insulza has not taken seriously the so-called ‘democratic charter.’ It seems to believe that only military ‘coups’ can challenge democracy. The truth is that democracy can be challenged from within, as the experiences of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and now Honduras, prove.”

One thing is certain: Zelaya doesn’t have many allies in the country.  According to reports, approximately 200 people protested today in front of the State house (juxtapose that to the situation in Iran).  The military is out in force but is doing nothing to stop the protesters or to disband them.  The courts, the Congress, the military, and the Catholic Church (an important actor in Honduras) are all behind the removal of Zelaya.

I’m also sure it’s never a good idea to be in agreement with Hugo Chavez if the debate is about democracy.

Military Coup d’Etat in Honduras

The army in Honduras has overthrown the government of Manuel Zelaya.

The coup is being billed as a consequence of Zelaya’s dismissal of General Romeo Zasquez and his attempt to conduct an unofficial election to gauge support for altering the term limits on the president (1 term of 4 years).

Mr. Zelaya is in Costa Rica where he is claiming political asylum.

The Obama Administration and the EU are calling for calm.  Hugo Chavez has mobilized the army and threatened to use military force against the small country if they encroach on Venezuelan sovereign land (ie, the embassy).

Out Goes Madagascar’s Government

It appears that Madagascar’s President, Marc Ravalomanana, just lost his Presidency.

Key facts:

- The opposition leader, Andry Rajoelina, called for his arrest after charging him with high treason for purportedly moving the country towards dictatorship.

- Rajoelina has promised elections within two years.

- Earlier, Rajoelina rejected an offer from the President to hold a referendum to see who remains in office.

- More than 100 people who protested as a show of support for Rajoelina have died at the hands of security forces.

I don’t know much about the situation, but the toppling of a democratic government should at least be noted.

Coup in Burma?

So this post is completely speculative at this point, but Andrew Sullivan is reports from a number of sites about rumors of a coup. He’s done a great job of following events in Burma and has been finding some great resources.

According the the sites he is linking to, there are reports that General Maung Aye, the second in command of the Burmese military, has deposed of the ruling general Than Shwe and has used the troops under his command to defend the house of Aung San Su Kyi.

Everything seems very up in the air at the moment, but earlier Andrew posted about rumors of mutinies by smaller military units and police forces around the country.

This could all be wide speculation as much of the mainstream communication links have been severed, but it would not be surprising. I actually wrote about this possibility almost a week ago. 

Let’s hope this split is actually occurring. Hope for a transition may be reborn yet.  Time to head home from work, but stay posted.